Discuss

As international organizations have proliferated and taken on more and more responsibilities in global society, so too has the need increased to hold such institutions to account—particularly given the power and responsibilities entrusted to international non-governmental organizations by beneficiaries, donors and the public.

A common discussion in international development circles, the fields of peacebuilding and conflict transformation have yet to fully grapple with the depth and complexity of accountability and its implications, both for programming and its evaluation, and organizational structures. In part, this is because there is still an ongoing debate on the intended purpose of evaluation—a critical component in accountability: is it about accountability (and if so, to whom and why?), learning (for whom, on what?), or simply the justification of continued funding?

Hot Resource! Evaluating Peacebuilding—Not Yet All It Could Be by Cheyanne Scharbatke-Church

Some perceive a tension between learning and accountability in evaluation, and indeed, including both uses in the evaluation can be a challenge and highlights the importance of a well-thought out and articulated Terms of Reference. And sometimes, evaluation is used for purposes other than accountability or learning: public relations, justifying the continuation of funding and specific activities, etc. Not only is that bad practice, it could be considered unethical to intentionally avoid accountability.

But let’s take a step back and examine the fundamentals of accountability in the context of international peacebuilding and conflict transformation.

What is Accountability?

Hot Resource! Pathways to Accountability: The GAP Framework by Monica Glagescu, Lucy de Las Casas and Robert Lloyd for One World Trust

Traditional conceptions of accountability concern a relationship between a principal who has delegated authority to an agent to act in the principal’s interests.

In the case of peacebuilding, this generally refers to donors delegating authority to NGOs (agents) to act in the interest of the donor (and presumes that the donor is indeed acting in the best interest of the intended beneficiaries, which is not always the case when aid is considered a political tool of statecraft).  Central to this conception is the principal’s power over the agent—upwards accountability. And, frequently, this accountability entails judgment at the end-stage of the actions.

But this view of accountability is narrow: it is a static, end-of-action review resulting in judgment of some kind. It is a disciplinary mechanism.

Instead, accountability can and should be used as an ongoing, transformative process for improvement:

“An organization that is accountable to multiple stakeholders not only ensures that decisions are effective in meeting the needs of those it affects, but also that decision-making processes are more equitable. This more open and participatory approach unlocks the potential of accountability as an agent for organizational learning. Accountability that is pursued on an ongoing basis opens up space for those affected by an organization’s policies to input into the decision making process. This in turn creates feedback loops that enable organizations to learn from what is effective and what is not.”1

This new view defines accountability as “the process through which an organization makes a commitment to respond to and balance the needs of stakeholders in its decision-making processes and activities, and delivers against this commitment.”2

Thus learning and accountability are intrinsically linked in this definition. 

Participatory processes, then, are central to the operationalization of this emerging definition of accountability. Since many peacebuilding approaches and philosophies are highly participatory, this should be a principle that resonates with organizational management. 

Accountability: First to Donors or Beneficiaries?

The principal in the accountability relationship, as it is traditionally defined, must be the donor due to basic operational practices of international NGOs which decide to conduct interventions based on a range of internal factors such as organizational growth, strategy and preferred tools and methods, and how these internal factors relate to the intervention context.

Rarely do organizations make it policy for an intervention to only be done at the behest of local actors and with rigorous justification. Such an approach would place beneficiaries as the principal in the accountability relationship, where it should ideally lie. Are there other ways to place beneficiaries higher on the accountability scale?

Certainly, most organizations consult with local stakeholders when conducting an assessment in preparation for an intervention. But the principal the organization is accountable to does not change; stakeholders are merely consulted in the development of the intervention, but they are not the primary stakeholder in the status-quo of the operational accountability paradigm.

How can accountability to beneficiaries be better conceptualized and operationalized in our practice of peacebuilding? There is no one answer, and the range of ways in which organizations currently engage beneficiaries for accountability purposes can enrich both the field-wide discussion that needs to happen and the potential ways forward.

How can we can be more accountable to local beneficiaries? It is an urgent and highly relevant question for a field that is rapidly maturing in a context where funding is ‘drying up’ and the demonstration of impact is increasingly demanded.

This is part one of an ongoing series exploring the notion of accountability in peacebuilding and its implications for practice. Next week will reflect on how key stakeholders are understood in traditional and emerging concepts of accountability.

• 1. Monica Glagescu, Lucy de Las Casas and Robert Lloyd, “Pathways to Accountability: The GAP Framework,” One World Trust, accessed 26 July 2012, http://oneworldtrust.org/publications/doc_view/210-pathways-to-accountability-the-gap-framework?tmpl=component&format=raw.
• 2. Glagescu, de Las Casas, Lloyd, “Pathways.”